Talk:Malawian Americans
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paraphrasing a source to impose an interpretation of an ambiguous source
editI would like to know why there are users who believe that quote is better or equal to explain with words a text, although, based on the policies of wikipedia, you must explain in your own words the text, rather than quote, always you can, as in the case of the organizations mentioned in this article.--Isinbill (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Which policy is that? It is far better to quote an ambiguous source than to use creative writing to impose your own interpretation about what the source is saying. Your edits have been disruptive and are unconstructive. AfricaTanz (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- You can modify the errors of interpretation that I make in the article, but explain things with our words is always better than quoting information of the sources.
Because our views are different, I decided to see what other editors thinks about our views on the Wikipedia:Help desk. I'd suggest you take a look at this page. The seccion in which I wrote is "Paraphrase or explain with my words a source about a partnership?"--Isinbill (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Paraphrasing is preferable to direct quotes. See WP:V#Verifiability_and_other_principles for the specific policy statement. Also, try to be careful of accusations of disruption. They can be construed as a violation of assuming good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)